PUDUCHERRY: The BJP government, which demonetised 500 and 1,000 notes in an effort to curb black money, terrorism and corruption, has now proposed to amend the prevention of corruption Act (PC Act), 1988, making it mandatory for the investigation agencies to obtain prior approval from the government to probe corruption charges against government servants (from peon to secretaries). This move has irked anti-corruption crusaders. India Against Corruption (IAC), an anti-corruption movement, has sent a memorandum to Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging him to drop the proposed amendment. The memorandum said the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in 2014 struck down similar provision (Section 6A) under the Delhi special police establishment act, 1946, which made it mandatory for the Central bureau of investigation (CBI) to seek prior approval for probing corruption charges against senior bureaucrats. DSPE act, 1946 (Section 6A) offers protection to one section of officers and impedes tracking down the corrupt senior bureaucrats said Puducherry IAC president S Anandkumar, who is also vice president of Tamil Nadu anti-bribe movement. "The provision in Section 6A impedes tracking down the corrupt senior bureaucrats as without previous approval of the Union government, the CBI cannot even hold preliminary inquiry much less an investigation into the allegations," said Anandkumar. He said the protection could shield the corrupt, quoting the judgment by the Chief Justice of India. He said the bench had ruled: Section 6A of the DSPE act, which granted protection to one set of officers is directly destructive and runs counter to the object and reason of the PC act, 1988. It also undermines the object of detecting and punishing high-level corruption. How can two public servants against whom there are allegations of corruption or graft or bribe taking or criminal misconduct under the PC act, 1988, be made to be treated differently because one happens to be a junior officer and the other a senior decision maker? The Constitution Bench also noted that, "Tracking down a corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC act. The status or position of a public servant does not qualify the person from exemption from equal treatment."

Anandkumar said the Union government has attempted to circumvent the top court's order that struck down the provision of prior sanction for prosecution in DSPE act by suppressing the relevant grounds on which the bench set aside such a provision as illegal. He said IAC was against the proposal to amend the PC act seeking previous approval. "The proposal to amend is immoral and should be withdrawn," he said adding that IAC has launched a series of campaigns distributing handbills and through social media to enlighten the public seeking their support against the amendment.